Thursday, January 27, 2011

ATF Shotgun Study

Am grinding through it now...it's a "study" only in the sense that it was produced, apparently, by people with too much time on their hands. The usual crapola...

http://www.atf.gov/publications/firearms/012611-study-on-importality-of-certain-shotguns.pdf


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

15 comments:

Richard said...

Too much time and too little thought...

The problem lies in the '68 Gun Control Act, which prohibits importation unless it fits into a narrow exception. THAT is the real issue.

The fact that they ignore three gun, USPCA, etc as "real sports" is a bit of an issue. Do we argue them as "sporting purposes" and by inference accept the "sporting purpose" exception as legit? Or do we make a big deal about the whole sporting purpose portion of the law being wrong?

The problem is I don't know that we can get the importation bans knocked out in the courts as unconstitutional per the Second Amendment. None of the importation bans appear to infringe to the point as to deny our rights to own and bear firearms, as so many fine guns are made here in the USA.

But it is 2:11 am here in Florida, and my thinking is hazed (slightly) by a lack of sleep and a cool adult beverage from the Sweetwater Brewing Company in Atlanta, GA.

-Richard

Muhr said...

The introduction of 'cheap' S12 drums at SHOT last year caused a brief price war that brought drums to around $100, this combined with the increased popularity of the S12 in practical shooting, and the realization of the bans were going to have to come from existing laws, and not new ones put a target (sorry cnn) on the S12 and anything like it.

Anonymous said...

"Importality?" That bureaucrat-babble tells us all we need to know about the posturing authors of this drivel.

Hint: The word they are stumbling blindly trying to find is "importability."

nj_larry said...

They really did mean IMPORTALITY. The definition of it in the official government dictionary goes:

"the characteristic of a commerce regulation which lives on forever. It is that which can not be appealed, repealed, or changed. It pretty much is like a ruling directly from God."

DamDoc said...

must not have liked all the downloads... report removed or moved on website!

nj_larry said...

I just wasted 15 minutes reading this trash. I am now totally bummed out. A typical gov't doc whose purpose is to justify the arbitrary decision they made. Best summed up on pg. 13 with this single sentence:

"The Attorney General and ATF are not limited to these factors and therefore may consider any
other factor determined to be relevant in making this determination."

In plain language that translates to "we can do anything we want, we are the government and you have no power over us."

Anonymous said...

Ok, stupid on it's face, but look at the sub-text--
Somebody is telegraphing big-time "Please give us a reason to declare USPSA, SASS & IDPA 'Sports'".

Our job is to get as many state legislatures (and any other influenceable body) to officially recognize those as sports muy pronto.

It's only a small step, but would cut the legs out from under the "Why do you Neeeed?" argument. "I need this for my Sport, Duh".

Pete said...

Nice reasoning on deciding that "plinking" isn't a sporting purpose:

If plinking's a sport, and any shotgun can be used for plinking, then there's nothing left for us to ban. And if we can't ban something, what's the point?

seeker_two said...

"The fact that they ignore three gun, USPCA, etc as "real sports" is a bit of an issue. Do we argue them as "sporting purposes" and by inference accept the "sporting purpose" exception as legit? Or do we make a big deal about the whole sporting purpose portion of the law being wrong?"

That may be the way to defeat it...make the courts demand a definition for "sport" and "sporting purpose"....then the fireworks will really begin....

Kevin said...

I'd suggest that you contact your senatecritter's with D after their names and suggest that a gun ban in early 2012 probably isn't something they will find helpful. And that the best way to prevent the possibility of Dear Leader doing this is to preemptively remove or fix the "sporting purpose" idiocy.

Anonymous said...

Most people care about their appearance a great deal and our Birkenstock Outlet will offer you diverse such items. You will like stylish Birkenstock Shoes. The utmost comfort of Birkenstock will benefit you a lot.

Motor-T said...

But wait, didn't Joe Biden promise me that Barack wouldn't go after my shotguns?

Professor said...

From the ATF report:
"Shotguns are measured by gauge in the United States. The gauge number refers to the “number
of equal-size balls cast from one pound of lead that would pass through the bore of a specific
diameter.”9 The largest commonly available gauge is 10 gauge (.0775 in. bore diameter).
Therefore, a 10 gauge shotgun will have an inside diameter equal to that of a sphere made from
one-tenth of a pound of lead."

Of course, they are only in error by a factor of 10 in the bore diameter. A lead projectile 0.0775" in diameter would contain one-ten-thousandth of a pound of lead... about the size of a single #9 shotgun pellet.

Ed said...

Although I don't own a shotgun, I still disagree with much of the substance in the ATF study on shotguns. I wrote an email to the ATF regarding the study. I'm sure parts of it will seem misguided, but what do I know? I'm just a dumb American who obtained a medical degree after 8 years of college and medical school. I only recently started taking shooting classes after a 20 year hiatus since my Air Force days. My response to the ATF is below. I apologize if I sound like a moron for I'm not a gun nut.
Enjoy...

To Whom It May Concern:

The criteria for “sporting purposes” is hard to pin down and can change with time.  In ancient Greece, “sports” such as wrestling, boxing, chariot racing and javelin throwing, were, in actuality, martial activities.  As technology brought changes to the way wars were fought, these anachronistic “martial” activities became sports which were engaged only for the purpose of pleasure.  Technological improvements to tools also led to changes in the way people live.  Rather than hunting with spears, we now use rifles.  Those hunting rifles have been used on battlefields.  For example, the M40A5 used by the Marine Corps, is a modified Remington 700 hunting rifle.  Not too long ago, hunting was not a sport, but a necessary means for providing subsistence level populations with food.  This still holds true in certain parts of the world today.  So the term “sporting purposes” cannot be defined with certainty as the line between sports, survival and martial activities is blurry at best.  To do so with your proposed language is rather arbitrary and impractical.  I agree that there needs to be control of dangerous technologically advanced objects, but to ban them outright based on arbitrary language is wrong.  Should we ban carbon dioxide spewing race cars?   Similar vehicles are used to traffic drugs, weapons and humans across state and national borders.  Unlicensed, irresponsible and unscrupulous users of these ecologically damaging and dangerous tools kill many people through activities such as texting while driving and driving under the influence, in addition to using these as aids to commit violent crimes.  

I implore you to not ban objects based on an arbitrary definition of “sporting purposes” because what is not considered a sport to one person may be considered a sport to another.  Instead, consider work on controlling who operates them through licensure and laws that keep up with the march of technology.  I personally think mixed martial arts cage fighting (MMA) abhorrent, but I defer the right for MMA participants and spectators to call it a sports and engage in it.  This is America and we need to give Americans a REASONABLE latitude of freedom that our founding fathers desired, despite our personal lifestyle preference.   Thank you for your time.

Big show said...

I feel ecstatic I found you website and blogs.
http://shootingtargets7.com